Re: [6tisch-security] [6tisch] xxx-bootstrap


> On 6 Dec 2016, at 18:53, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
> 
> 
> replying to three of your messages, and trying to repoint the thread at
> 6tisch-security.
> 
> peter van der Stok <stokcons@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> all in favor of one approach to merge the push/pull aspects. (I have to
>> understand the protocol exchange below, but it looks feasibale)
>> I am not sure about understanding EDHOC, but may be that is not important.
> 
> I think it is.
> 
>> I still see all the mime formats. is that phase 1?
> 
> They are HTTP content-types really.
> That's part of of the phase 2.
> 
>> Is phase 2 then switching to OSCOAP with a single format containing binary
>> encoding?
> 
> No, we would use EDHOC to create a secure session, and then we would run
> our EST-CoAP-variant over that. No DTLS at all.
> 
> peter van der Stok <stokcons@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> I don't think EDHOC is meant to replace EST or the anima work.
> 
> EDHOC doesn't replace EST, it replaces DTLS.
> 
> peter van der Stok <stokcons@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> As discussed earlier, having a push/pull agnostic protocol would be
>> nice. (and probably feasible)
> 
>> As stated earlier, I think that discovery and which node starts the bootstrap
>> protocol (BRSKI) is very much installation/technology dependent, and should
>> be done in another document.
> 
> I feel very much like I am the holdout for having the JCE initiate the join
> protocol.
> 
>> My intention was to reduce the coding effort of the registrar by making 1)
>> and 2) as similar as can be hoped for;
>> while payload considerations are of secondary importance.
>> My hope being that a manufacturer will deliver a registrar box supporting
>> both coap and http versions.
> 
>> When the consensus is that adding coap is already such an extra effort that
>> code sharing between http and coap versions does not alleviate the effort,
>> then any solution for coap that concentrates on payload reduction is fine by
>> me.
> 
> I can see an implementation where a front-end requests/processes the PKCS
> format messages in traditional EST and the CoAP push/pull variants, and then
> feeds it into the same engine.
> 
> I think that the biggest interoperability problem that we are going to have
> is in the step where the Registrar/JCE tells the Pledge what to put in it's
> CSR. This is because this part probably involves doing real ASN.1 work, and
> pledges will want none of that.
> 
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
> -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 6tisch-security mailing list
> 6tisch-security@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch-security